Re: [GLIF tech] Why do we need topology exchange?

[Jeroen van der Ham <vdham@xxxxxx>]

On 15/10/2010 15:19, Victor Reijs wrote:
> So A full topology is not needed in my humble opinion, but an abstract
> (at least see a domain as a node).

I completely agree.

However, at the GLIF meeting I posed that the statement that I've been
working at topology descriptions for over 5 years now, partly because
the GLIF community showed an interest in this.
At the moment GOLEs are still not publishing topologies in a machine
readable format. So there seems to be a disconnect between what the
community says they want to do and what they actually do.

We need to figure out why that is.

Jeroen.